bytelines

Nah this was a 300IQ pro gamer move. Cunningham's Law.

k

It's a troll. "Optional activities" gets translated to "mandatory" and a game is "far more important" yet apparently in such a game nobody really likes each other, too.

What is to prevent the network from facilitating money laundering and purchase of illegal goods?

I'm very confused by both of your points. The supply of a cryptocurrency is equal to a person? A crypto token is not a person so I'm guessing you missed a few words there?

How is building a competing chain to more efficiently solve a problem (high transaction fees) in a competitive market in any way "dismissing" that problem? That seems the exact opposite of dismissing a problem.

Do those new solutions come with new problems? Sure, that's true of any technology. Dynamo-based databases solved high availability and network partitionability of data but come with several trade-offs. That doesn't mean you shouldn't use Cassandra for anything.

That said, Solana is not the hill I'm willing to die on and it's hot garbage. Hedera seems good though.

That creates opprotunities for other Level 1 chains. Solana for example charges $0.00025 per transaction (however this is still denominated in the SOL currency so it will fluctuate). Hedera network is $0.0001 per transaction and is fixed in USD.

Would lightning network approach comply with KYC laws?

SLA is simply an intent to provide a level of service. If that can't be met, then there'd be an agreement on what the consequence of that was. Don't meet an availability SLA and maybe you get some credit back. You can't offer a best effort for non-repudiation of data. It either is or it isn't.

Maybe trust is the wrong word. Like - yes they might say they intend to provide this level of service, but the only way they can actually guarantee that level of non-repudiation of data is with cryptographic proofs and decentralized consensus and now you've basically got a cryptographic ledger.

PoW Blockchain isn't the only technology to accomplish this, either. There's a whole host of blockchain and post-blockchain technologies seeking to corner that market - a more efficient blockchain. Hedera for example uses the hashgraph algorithm.

Maybe a key distinction here is that TCB itself is not trustless - it requires KYC, etc. But where data is stored and redeemed is on the trustless, decentralized Hedera network. It functions as an automated, secure ledger.

You could replace Hedera with a private blockchain or another ledger - likely not a public one due to unpredictable transaction fees or high time to consensus - the value is the same.

The hedera network is autonomous and decentralized - TCB built on top of it. So to issue or redeem your coupon you'd need to participate in TCB, but as a result you'd be able to issue your coupons directly to consumers and then any retailer also in TCB would be able to redeem them.

> I fail to see the added benefit of slapping a blockchain/web3/NFT/whatever on top, but maybe I'm just ignorant.

Mainly being able to run this as a service and having assurance that the data you put onto it is correct, like a digital notary. And to provide assurances like no double spend and transaction ordering. A way to verify that something happened and not rely on an intermediary to decide that or to have custody of that data.

So for example Amazon could easily implement this, and do it at scale. Would you trust Amazon? To both keep custody of your data, ensure that it will always be available, that it would not be meddled with? Would an enterprise like Wal-Mart trust that?

That's essentially TCB's problem. Wal-Mart doesn't necessarily trust the TCB, either, even though it is industry non-profit. So TCB uses Hedera as its data layer - it does not own the data.

And how can Wal-Mart trust Hedera, ultimately? The governing council

https://hedera.com/council

The technology doesn't have to solve all problems to have economic value. Arguably the "cash alternative" problem is a fundamental problem of coupons themselves. And as you point out, these are not new problems, and does an immutable public ledger makes such activity easier to audit and prosecute? I would argue 'yes' and that web3 has not made the problem worse but in fact better. The authorities do not need to request your books for starters. And as a retailer you do not need to maintain the books. Its already in a trusted ledger. This is a market efficiency. Inefficiency is not a way to secure things.

As far as doubt whether customers are asking for this - I mean, again you can listen above but yes a number of large retailers and vendors like Wal-mart and P&G are going live with this use-case this year.

And who are we to decide what is economically viable and what isn't? Let the market decide.

Here's a more concrete example: coupons.

I, as a supplier, want to prevent coupon fraud - a ~300M year problem. Today they mitigate this with trust relationships between retailers and distributers, which consequentially means that coupons are less widely distributed and more marginal in what discounts they offer than they could be.

When coupons are redeemed, a cashier stuffs them in a bag, they get counted and redeemed and the supplier cuts a check. A shady retailer can simply say they have double the coupons they actually received, and they will get the same check. There's nothing unique about the coupon to prevent this.

Ignoring web3, how could you solve this? You could set up some simple database and rest api and have the coupons have some unique identity. You'd need to make this cryptographically secure so you couldn't simply forge identities, you'd need to be able to issue these easily and in bulk, have them expire at a certain time, onboard retailers to easily redeem these coupons and then facilitate payments to the retailer.

And, well, that's essentially what Hedera does[1], as a cryptographic DLT. Its value is that the cryptographic proof of whether something is unique and how it can be redeemed is done via NFT, and this protects against a number of attacks at the "consensus level". It offers you a secure way to do this and not run any computer, for minimal and predictable fees. Every transaction is fixed to USD and costs 0.0001 USD and completes in 5 seconds.

https://hedera.com/users/coupon-bureau

If you don't believe me that the customer is asking for this maybe you can listen to them yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=--Bw8yYwJL4

He said he feels sad, not that it was unfair. Sad that, for reasons Will makes very clear, he could not forgive.

If you don't smoke Tarrlytons...f** you!

> This is an application built with least privilege in mind

Uh huh, makes sense

> Named SuperUser

Uhh...

It lists all the operations that it can't do, but not what it can do. Can they download a private SAML certificate? Can they impersonate a user? Can they configure SSO and MFA settings? Can they download audit logs?

I wonder if this extends to non-solicitation of employees agreements

The Kinzhal does not enter space, therefore no space-based intercept is applicable. The Avangard is an example of a FOBS - will the space based intercept be able to intercept a FOBS vehicle? I'm unclear.

Is it really necessary to lead with "Again"? It makes me feel like you think I can't understand, and therefore you're smarter than me, that you are some know-it-all who has to be right, and that it's zero sum so that I must also therefore be wrong for you to be right. Your informative and accurate point can be made without that word.

We can and should learn from each other. You know a lot and I want to learn from you.

I hope that wasn't too antagonistic, I just wanted to explain how your comment made me feel. I had some very mean things to say to you before writing this out. Thank you for posting, I wasn't aware of Starlink's military implications.

Same with hypersonic missiles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-47M2_Kinzhal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_veh...

I'm sorry - I'll try to be kinder. To explain myself, I too was put off by your dismissiveness of Googles own key contributions. But that doesn't mean I can't say that kindly.

For whatever it's worth, you have a very cogent way of making your point.

Because Docker is also innovative?

What is your argument here? If Google doesn't innovate everything, it can't be innovative?

This is nonsense.

> Google just threw big numbers at it to make sure they took the biggest piece of the pie.

And, ya know, invented cgroups and everything.

The insider trading training is an excellent example: it does not benefit the company, and is done at an individual level, so the training reflects what the law says and what is not allowed. Individuals may break that.

Say that you are part of the executive team of Amazon, and want to take some illegal behavior like price fixing. Things that actually happened. You know it is illegal and want to avoid getting caught, so your communications only happen in person, and there's not really a paper trail.

Okay, great, you've set that up now. Now it's the day to day business at your company, and all different departments need to do their basic jobs to support that. You're still doing something illegal, and now it's spread across hundreds of people to support your illegal activity. The last thing you want to do is to have them writing e-mails about price fixing and kickbacks etc. How do you avoid this? Train your people not to mention certain words.

And guess what, that's exactly what they do.

Amazon literally committed a crime requiring many people to conspire. How is it cynicism to say that Amazon can conspire to commit crimes?

Your optimism is impressively high.

> Amazon: commits crimes

> OP: lol when I was at Amazon they told us not to talk about crimes

> You: These are completley unrelated! Let's stop this trope!

> This is true always, which is why the advice this person got is also commonly given in lots of forms. For example, doctors are often trained in being careful in what they write down for the same reason.

Alternative take: it is indeed for the same reason - to avoid incriminating yourself. You carry assumption that the behavior is not incriminating.

Doctors do commit in malpractice. Companies do engage in monopolistic behavior.

If such training were strictly to avoid illegal behavior, wouldn't it be better to train people in what the precise legal concept is, so that they can comply with the law? Or is behaving within the law a secondary concern.

In this case Amazon quite literally got caught by the AG of Washington state for breaking the exact laws their training tells them they shouldn't talk about. Why are you defending this?

I see! Thank you for taking the time to write that out, much appreciated.

> Different tools take different approach to solve that issue there. systemd take approach that is derived from launchd - do not do stuff, that is not needed. It achieved that by merging D-Bus into the systemd itself, and then making all service to be D-Bus daemons (which are started on request), and additionally it provides a bunch of triggers for that daemons. We can trigger on action of other services (obviously), but also on stuff like socket activity, path creation/modification, mounts, connection or disconnection of device, time events, etc.

Does this require a good understanding of D-Bus to understand? Because I got completely lost on this...

This is equivalent to claiming riding an airline doesn't emit any CO2 because the plane was going to fly anyways

Oh you've provided much more than that lol

I dont really have much to say about your political rant other than to point out the irony of some reality denying ideologist misrepresenting what people think or say being a central theme in your argument.

It isn't. It just makes it cheap and easy. Its not a problem for a government agency to run a PKI, and for verifying identities they probably should.

But what about smaller entities, or even individuals. And what if they don't want to verify their identity but maybe an action.

Its not introducing anything new. It's just lowering the capital costs to doing it. Much like the internet lowered the costs to publishing and distributing an essay.

Yes, exactly. And now think of all the limitations of running a PKI.

For many use cases, Crypto doesn't do things a PKI can't. It just does them without some of those limitations.